I have an application which has several functions in it. Each function can be called many times based on user input. However I need to execute a small segment of the code within a function only once, initially when the application is launched. When this same function is called again at a later point of time, this particular piece of code must not be executed. The code is in VC++. Please tell me the most efficient way of handling this.
Compact version using lambda function:
void foo()
{
static bool once = [](){
cout << "once" << endl;
return true;
} ();
cout << "foo" << endl;
}
Code within lambda function is executed only once, when the static variable is initialized to the return value of lambda function. It should be thread-safe as long as your compiler support thread-safe static initialization.
Using C++11 -- use the std::call_once
#include <mutex>
std::once_flag onceFlag;
{
....
std::call_once ( onceFlag, [ ]{ /* my code body here runs only once */ } );
....
}
Use global static objects with constructors (which are called before main)? Or just inside a routine
static bool initialized;
if (!initialized) {
initialized = true;
// do the initialization part
}
There are very few cases when this is not fast enough!
addenda
In multithreaded context this might not be enough:
You may also be interested in pthread_once or constructor function __attribute__ of GCC.
With C++11, you may want std::call_once.
You may want to use <atomic> and perhaps declare static volatile std::atomic_bool initialized; (but you need to be careful) if your function can be called from several threads.
But these might not be available on your system; they are available on Linux!
You can use local static variable:
void foo()
{
static bool wasExecuted = false;
if (wasExecuted)
return;
wasExecuted = true;
...
}
Additionally to #Basile's answer, you can use a lambda to encapsulate the static variable as follows:
if ([] {
static bool is_first_time = true;
auto was_first_time = is_first_time;
is_first_time = false;
return was_first_time; } ())
{
// do the initialization part
}
This makes it easy to convert into a general-purpose macro:
#define FIRST_TIME_HERE ([] { \
static bool is_first_time = true; \
auto was_first_time = is_first_time; \
is_first_time = false; \
return was_first_time; } ())
Which can be placed anywhere you want call-by-need:
if (FIRST_TIME_HERE) {
// do the initialization part
}
And for good measure, atomics shorten the expression and make it thread-safe:
#include <atomic>
#define FIRST_TIME_HERE ([] { \
static std::atomic<bool> first_time(true); \
return first_time.exchange(false); } ())
could you do this
have a function that return a bool or some datatype called init
I made it happen this way, you need static bool to make it happens
bool init()
{
cout << "Once " <<endl;
return true||false;// value isn't matter
}
void functionCall()
{
static bool somebool = init(); // this line get executed once
cout << "process " <<endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
functionCall();
functionCall();
functionCall();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
for C
#include <stdio.h>
void init()
{
printf("init\n");
}
void process()
{
static int someint = 0;
if(someint == 0)
{
someint = 1;
init();
}
printf("process\n");
}
int main()
{
process();
process();
process();
return 0;
}
std::call_once() et al. may be overkill if you don't need a totally thread-safe solution.
If not, we can make this look especially elegant when using C++17's initialisation-within-if and std::exchange():
#include <utility>
void
do_something_expensive_once()
{
if ( static auto called = false; !std::exchange(called, true) ) {
do_something_expensive();
}
}
If this is a pattern you use a lot, then we can encapsulate it via a tag type:
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
template <typename T>
auto
call_once()
{
static auto called = false;
return !std::exchange(called, true);
}
void
do_something_expensive()
{
std::cout << "something expensive\n";
}
void
do_something_expensive_once()
{
if ( call_once<struct TagForSomethingExpensive>() ) {
do_something_expensive();
}
}
auto
main() -> int
{
for (auto i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
do_something_expensive_once();
}
return 0;
}
This will only print something expensive a single time. Result! It also uses the ability to declare a tag struct in a template argument list, for maximal brevity.
Alternatively, you could template on a function's address, a unique integer, etc.
You can then also pass a callable to call_once(), and so on, and so forth. As usual for C++: the possibilities are endless!
With due respect to std::call_once() and the usual caveats about thread safety, here's another lightweight option which avoids unused variable warnings and keeps our flag in block scope:
for (static bool once=true; once; once=false) {
yourCodeHere();
}
Another simple solution is:
#define execute_once if(static bool b = false; b) ; else if((b = true))
Used thus:
execute_once std::cout << "Hi mum!\n";
or:
execute_once
{
std::cout << "These statements are ";
std::cout << "only executed once\n";
}
It's not thread safe, obviously. (EDIT: although just using a std::atomic_bool in place of the bool would get you there I think.)
do {
//execute code once
} while (false)
Related
Lets say I have a bool variable(global or local) & a function which is present. The function should execute only when the bool variable is true. Since this function is repeated many times & I need a way to execute this function without performing if the bool variable is true everytime.
function();
bool executeFun = true;
if(executeFun){
function();
}
..
if(executeFun){
function();
}
.. Need to execute function() without checking bool each time.
Thanks :)
Wrap it in another function.
auto perhaps = executeFun ? function : +[](){};
perhaps();
perhaps();
perhaps();
You could use a function pointer that you set after having checked the condition:
#include <iostream>
using func_t = void(*)();
int main() {
func_t p = []{};
p(); // does nothing
if(true) p = []{ std::cout << "doing something\n"; };
p(); // does something
}
Can you move the bool check inside the function?
void function();
bool executeFun = true;
void function() {
if (!executeFun) return;
...
}
...
function();
...
function();
I would like to create something similar to rust unsafe scope in C++.
The idea is that I have some functions performing number of checks. For example:
void check() {
if (...)
throw exception(...);
}
void foo() {
check();
// do some work
}
Now, I want to be able to call function foo() with or (in different context) without performing those checks. Ideally it would look like this:
foo(); // call foo and perform checks
unsafe {
foo(); // call foo without checks
}
My question is, is it possible to achieve something like this in compile time? Is it possible to somehow check (or act differently) from check function in what scope it is called?
I came up only with a runtime solution: to wrap it in some lambda:
unsafe([&] {
foo();
});
where unsafe is implemented as follows:
void unsafe(std::function<void()> f)
{
thread_local_flag = unsafe;
f();
thread_local_flag = safe;
}
check() function would just check for the thread_local flag and perform checks only when it is set to safe.
🤔
namespace detail_unsafe {
thread_local int current_depth;
struct unsafe_guard {
unsafe_guard() { ++current_depth; }
~unsafe_guard() { --current_depth; }
unsafe_guard(unsafe_guard const &) = delete;
unsafe_guard &operator = (unsafe_guard const &) = delete;
};
}
#define unsafe \
if(::detail_unsafe::unsafe_guard _ug; false) {} else
bool currently_unsafe() {
return detail_unsafe::current_depth > 0;
}
See it live on Coliru. Also, please don't actually define unsafe as a macro...
is it possible to achieve something like this in compile time?
Not the way you presented. Making foo a template function might give you equivalent results, though:
enum class CallType // find a better name yourself...
{
SAFE,
UNSAFE,
};
template <CallType Type = CallType::SAFE>
void foo()
{
if constexpr(Type != CallType::UNSAFE)
{
if (...)
throw ...;
}
// do some work
}
You might call it like:
foo();
foo<CallType::UNSAFE>();
Disliking templates?
Simple approach (thanks, #VTT):
void check(); // no template any more
void foo_unsafe()
{
// do some work
}
inline void foo()
{
check();
foo_unsafe();
}
Or selecting via parameter (this pattern exists in standard library, too):
struct Unsafe
{
};
inline Unsafe unsafe;
void check();
void foo(Unsafe)
{
// do some work
}
inline void foo()
{
check();
foo(unsafe);
}
Edit:
Well, in the example I presented I could do that, but in general, I can call some other function bar inside unsafe which in turn calls foo. And I don't want to specialize bar and possible other methods.
Unter this constraint, the template variant might be the closest you can get to at compile time; you don't have to specialise all the functions, but you'd need to make templates from:
template <CallType Type = CallType::SAFE>
void bar()
{
// do some other work
foo<Type>(); // just call with template parameter
// yet some further work
}
I would simply use a RAII type to toggle the unsafe flag inside a scope as such:
thread_local bool unsafe_flag = false;
/// RAII Type that toggles the flag on while it's alive
/// Possibly add a reference counter so it can be used nested
struct unsafe_scope
{
constexpr unsafe_scope() { unsafe_flag = true; }
~unsafe_scope() { unsafe_flag = false; }
};
/// Gets a value from a pointer
int get_value(int* ptr)
{
if ( unsafe_flag )
{
if ( ptr == nullptr ) { return 0; }
}
return *ptr;
}
int main()
{
int* x = nullptr;
//return get_value(x); // Doesn't perform the check
{
unsafe_scope cur_scope;
return get_value(x); // Performs the check
}
}
In order to make it nested I would add a reference counter like this:
/// RAII Type that toggles the flag on while it's alive
struct unsafe_scope
{
thread_local static size_t ref_count;
constexpr unsafe_scope()
{
unsafe_flag = true;
ref_count++;
}
~unsafe_scope()
{
ref_count--;
if ( ref_count == 0 ) { unsafe_flag = false; }
}
};
/// In source file
thread_local size_t unsafe_scope::ref_count = 0;
The ref_count doesn't need to be atomic since it's thread_local
Now I don't think there's a way to achieve the syntax you wanted with the unsafe before the scope, but if you put it right after the scope as such it should be about the same:
{ unsafe_scope cur_scope;
return get_value(x); // Performs the check
}
Edit:
I've now noticed Quentin's answer is also a RAII type, just with slightly different semantics, instead of having a global thread_local flag a function just returns if the reference counter is bigger than 0. Also the macro achieves the exact syntax you wanted, although it's also possible with this unsafe_scope by modifying his macro like this:
#define unsafe\
if (unsafe_scope cur_scope; false) {} else
His method uses C++17's if initializer, which lets you initiates a variable in the if statement, but the variable is still initialized in the else block, so it only gets destroyed after the else scope if over.
I have a class with a function that takes a std::function and stores it. This part seems to compile ok (but please point out any issue if there are any)
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
struct worker
{
std::function<bool(std::string)> m_callback;
void do_work(std::function<bool(std::string)> callback)
{
m_callback = std::bind(callback, std::placeholders::_1);
callback("hello world\n");
}
};
// pretty boring class - a cut down of my actual class
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(std::string str)
{
std::cout << str << std::endl;
return true;
}
};
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
//the_helper.the_worker.do_work(std::bind(&helper::work_callback, the_helper, std::placeholders::_1)); // <---- SEGFAULT (but works in minimal example)
the_helper.the_worker.do_work(std::bind(&helper::work_callback, &the_helper, std::placeholders::_1)); // <---- SEEMS TO WORK
}
I get a segfault, but I am not sure why. I have used this before, in fact, I copied this example from another place I used it. The only real difference that the member function was part of the class I called it from (i.e. this instead of the_helper).
So this is why I am also asking if there is anything else I am doing wrong in general? Like should I be passing the std::function as:
void do_work(std::function<bool(std::string)>&& callback)
or
void do_work(std::function<bool(std::string)>& callback)
As also noted by #Rakete1111 in comments, the problem probably was in this code:
bool work_callback(std::string str)
{
std::cout << str << std::endl;
}
In C++ if a non-void function does not return a value the result is undefined behavior.
This example will crash with clang but pass with gcc.
If helper::work_callback returns (e.g, true) the code works just fine.
I don't know why your code seg faults because I was spoiled and skipped std::bind straight to lambdas. Since you use C++11 you should really convert your code from std::bind to lambdas:
struct worker
{
std::function<bool(std::string)> m_callback;
void do_work(std::function<bool(std::string)> callback)
{
m_callback = callback;
callback("hello world\n");
}
};
Now with work_callback and calling do_work things need some analysis.
First version:
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(std::string)
{
return false;
}
};
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
the_helper.the_worker.do_work([&](std::string s) { return the_helper.work_callback(s); });
}
Now this version works with your toy example. However out in the wild you need to be careful. The lambda passed to do_work and then stored in the_worker captures the_helper by reference. This means that this code is valid only if the helper object passed as reference to the lambda outlives the worker object that stores the m_callback. In your example the worker object is a sub-object of the the helper class so this is true. However if in your real example this is not the case or you cannot prove this, then you need to capture by value.
First attempt to capture by value (does not compile):
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(std::string)
{
return false;
}
};
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
the_helper.the_worker.do_work([=](std::string s) { return the_helper.work_callback(s); });
}
This does not compile because the copy of the_helper stored in the lambda object is const by default and as such you cannot call work_callback on it.
A questionable solution if you can't make work_callback const is to make the lambda mutable:
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(std::string)
{
return false;
}
};
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
the_helper.the_worker.do_work([=](std::string s) mutable { return the_helper.work_callback(s); });
}
But you need to think if this is what you intended.
What would make more sense is to make work_callback const:
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(std::string) const
{
return false;
}
};
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
the_helper.the_worker.do_work([=](std::string s) { return the_helper.work_callback(s); });
}
The reason for getting SEGFAULT has been already mentioned in the comments.
However, I would like to point out that, you need to use neither std::bind nor std::function, here in your given case. Instead, simply having a lambda and a function pointer you can handle what you intend to do.
struct worker
{
typedef bool(*fPtr)(const std::string&); // define fun ptr type
fPtr m_callback;
void do_work(const std::string& str)
{
// define a lambda
m_callback = [](const std::string& str)
{
/* do something with string*/
std::cout << "Call from worker: " << str << "\n";
return true;
};
bool flag = m_callback(str);// just call the lambda here
/* do some other stuff*/
}
};
struct helper
{
worker the_worker;
bool work_callback(const std::string& str)
{
std::cout << "Call from helper: ";
this->the_worker.do_work(str);
return true; ------------------------>// remmeber to keep the promise
}
};
And use case would be:
int main()
{
helper the_helper;
the_helper.work_callback(std::string("hello world"));
// or if you intend to use
the_helper.the_worker.do_work(std::string("hello world"));
return 0;
}
see Output here:
PS: In the above case, if worker does not required m_callback for later cases(i.e, only for do_work()), then you can remove this member, as lambdas can be created and called at same place where it has been declared.
struct worker
{
void do_work(const std::string& str)
{
bool flag = [](const std::string& str)->bool
{
/* do something with string*/
std::cout << "Call from worker: " << str << "\n";
return true;
}(str); -------------------------------------> // function call
/* do other stuff */
}
};
I have an application which has several functions in it. Each function can be called many times based on user input. However I need to execute a small segment of the code within a function only once, initially when the application is launched. When this same function is called again at a later point of time, this particular piece of code must not be executed. The code is in VC++. Please tell me the most efficient way of handling this.
Compact version using lambda function:
void foo()
{
static bool once = [](){
cout << "once" << endl;
return true;
} ();
cout << "foo" << endl;
}
Code within lambda function is executed only once, when the static variable is initialized to the return value of lambda function. It should be thread-safe as long as your compiler support thread-safe static initialization.
Using C++11 -- use the std::call_once
#include <mutex>
std::once_flag onceFlag;
{
....
std::call_once ( onceFlag, [ ]{ /* my code body here runs only once */ } );
....
}
Use global static objects with constructors (which are called before main)? Or just inside a routine
static bool initialized;
if (!initialized) {
initialized = true;
// do the initialization part
}
There are very few cases when this is not fast enough!
addenda
In multithreaded context this might not be enough:
You may also be interested in pthread_once or constructor function __attribute__ of GCC.
With C++11, you may want std::call_once.
You may want to use <atomic> and perhaps declare static volatile std::atomic_bool initialized; (but you need to be careful) if your function can be called from several threads.
But these might not be available on your system; they are available on Linux!
You can use local static variable:
void foo()
{
static bool wasExecuted = false;
if (wasExecuted)
return;
wasExecuted = true;
...
}
Additionally to #Basile's answer, you can use a lambda to encapsulate the static variable as follows:
if ([] {
static bool is_first_time = true;
auto was_first_time = is_first_time;
is_first_time = false;
return was_first_time; } ())
{
// do the initialization part
}
This makes it easy to convert into a general-purpose macro:
#define FIRST_TIME_HERE ([] { \
static bool is_first_time = true; \
auto was_first_time = is_first_time; \
is_first_time = false; \
return was_first_time; } ())
Which can be placed anywhere you want call-by-need:
if (FIRST_TIME_HERE) {
// do the initialization part
}
And for good measure, atomics shorten the expression and make it thread-safe:
#include <atomic>
#define FIRST_TIME_HERE ([] { \
static std::atomic<bool> first_time(true); \
return first_time.exchange(false); } ())
could you do this
have a function that return a bool or some datatype called init
I made it happen this way, you need static bool to make it happens
bool init()
{
cout << "Once " <<endl;
return true||false;// value isn't matter
}
void functionCall()
{
static bool somebool = init(); // this line get executed once
cout << "process " <<endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
functionCall();
functionCall();
functionCall();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
for C
#include <stdio.h>
void init()
{
printf("init\n");
}
void process()
{
static int someint = 0;
if(someint == 0)
{
someint = 1;
init();
}
printf("process\n");
}
int main()
{
process();
process();
process();
return 0;
}
std::call_once() et al. may be overkill if you don't need a totally thread-safe solution.
If not, we can make this look especially elegant when using C++17's initialisation-within-if and std::exchange():
#include <utility>
void
do_something_expensive_once()
{
if ( static auto called = false; !std::exchange(called, true) ) {
do_something_expensive();
}
}
If this is a pattern you use a lot, then we can encapsulate it via a tag type:
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
template <typename T>
auto
call_once()
{
static auto called = false;
return !std::exchange(called, true);
}
void
do_something_expensive()
{
std::cout << "something expensive\n";
}
void
do_something_expensive_once()
{
if ( call_once<struct TagForSomethingExpensive>() ) {
do_something_expensive();
}
}
auto
main() -> int
{
for (auto i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
do_something_expensive_once();
}
return 0;
}
This will only print something expensive a single time. Result! It also uses the ability to declare a tag struct in a template argument list, for maximal brevity.
Alternatively, you could template on a function's address, a unique integer, etc.
You can then also pass a callable to call_once(), and so on, and so forth. As usual for C++: the possibilities are endless!
With due respect to std::call_once() and the usual caveats about thread safety, here's another lightweight option which avoids unused variable warnings and keeps our flag in block scope:
for (static bool once=true; once; once=false) {
yourCodeHere();
}
Another simple solution is:
#define execute_once if(static bool b = false; b) ; else if((b = true))
Used thus:
execute_once std::cout << "Hi mum!\n";
or:
execute_once
{
std::cout << "These statements are ";
std::cout << "only executed once\n";
}
It's not thread safe, obviously. (EDIT: although just using a std::atomic_bool in place of the bool would get you there I think.)
do {
//execute code once
} while (false)
Instead of doing the following everytime
start();
// some code here
stop();
I would like to define some sort of macro which makes it possible to write like:
startstop()
{
//code here
}
Is it possible in C++?
You can do something very close using a small C++ helper class.
class StartStopper {
public:
StartStopper() { start(); }
~StartStopper() { stop(); }
};
Then in your code:
{
StartStopper ss;
// code here
}
When execution enters the block and constructs the ss variable, the start() function will be called. When execution leaves the block, the StartStopper destructor will be automatically called and will then call stop().
The idiomatic way of doing this in C++ is called Resource Acquisition Is Initialization, or shortly RAII. In addition to providing what you want, it also has the added benefit of being exception safe: the stop function will be called even if your code throws an exception.
Define a guard struct:
struct startstop_guard
{
startstop_guard()
{
start();
}
~startstop_guard()
{
stop();
}
};
and then rewrite your code this way:
{
startstop_guard g;
// your code
}
The guard's destructor (and thus the stop function) will be called automatically at the end of the enclosing block.
Other answers have addressed the RAII side of the question well, so I'm going to address the syntax side of it.
#define startstop for(Starter s; s.loop; s.loop = false)
struct Starter {
bool loop;
Starter() { start(); loop = true; }
~Starter() { stop(); }
};
Used like:
startstop {
// some code
}
Should be self-explanatory enough.
#define startstop(x, y, ...) for( /* use macro args */ )
Generic solution with RAII and boost::function ( std::function ).
class starter
{
typedef boost::function< void () > action;
action end_;
public:
starter(action start, action end):
end_(end)
{
log("starter start");
start();
}
~starter()
{
log("starter end");
end_() ;
}
};
int main()
{
{
starter s(start, stop);
middle();
}
return 0;
}
or to test and check the idea
void print(const std::string& message)
{
std::cout << message << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
starter s(boost::bind(print, "globalstart"),
boost::bind(print, "globalend"));
{
starter s(boost::bind(print, "start"),
boost::bind(print, "end"));
std::cout << "middle" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
What are you trying to do? I'd recommend checking out RAII as a much more C++ oriented way of doing things than macro hacking, with all its unforeseen consequences.
Don't use macros. You can use inline functions instead as it provides type checking and other features. You can take a look here: inline functions
credit to dirkgently for the idea.. I thought I'd fill the rest in
#define startstop() for(start();isStarted();stop())
In c#, you could use the IDisposable pattern, and implement your Stop() functionality in the Dispose() method, but that would would work if you were using a .net variant of c++.